3 ms·

Almost all climate tech is greenwashing; superficial solutions. Climate issues require deeper system changes. We need a system which encourages financial pruden

Almost all climate tech is greenwashing; superficial solutions. Climate issues require deeper system changes. We need a system which encourages financial prudence and frugality instead of one which encourages financial recklessness, infinite growth, consumerism and bullshit jobs. The problem needs to be solved at the lowest monetary incentive layer. How much energy is wasted by people travelling to and from their bullshit jobs? How many flights they need to take each year for holidays in order to heal from the accumulated stress of their mind-numbing jobs? How much surplus consumption do these bullshit jobs generate? How much plastic is thrown on the side of the road and into the ocean because people are too concerned about their own survival to give a crap about the environment and the future of mankind? It's quite clear that if we all had less money and worked fewer hours, we would produce less greenhouse gases and live healthier, more fulfilled lives. Unfortunately, the current system is only good at depriving money from some of the population (while giving others a huge surplus) and it only ever demands more hours of work from everyone... So it barely even solves half of the first problem while making everything else worse.

tofuahdude 4y ago
Ironically many YCombinator businesses support the opposite. Perhaps the first thing YC needs is a mirror.
- enduser 4y ago
  Unfortunately they only fund things that people want, not things that people need.
coffeemug 4y ago
That's one cultural point of view. Another point of view is that we should get ourselves in a position where we can produce (and consume) infinite clean energy, for example, but building a thousand nuclear power plants. Team mushrooms vs team cocaine.
- jongjong 4y ago
  We'd still have to take care of the plastics problem and also any population growth problem which would arise from that. It seems that historically, any improvements in efficiency has lead to population booms which negated the efficiency improvements. That's why I think the solution is systemic and cultural. The best that technology can offer IMO is to support a cultural shift and new incentive structures based on scarcity.
imiric 4y ago
I'd say that the solutions should start from the top first. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global GHG emissions.[1] That's a mind-boggling statistic. The counterargument is, of course, that these companies are supplying the demand; that consumers should vote with their wallets, change their habits, recycle, reduce their "carbon footprint", etc. This is the usual deflection propaganda pushed by the companies themselves, and shills who benefit from them. But the reality is that if only a fraction of these companies changed a fraction of their processes to lower their emissions, or—heaven forbid—reduced their growth and shareholder profits, the positive impact would be far, far greater than anything individuals could ever do. It's ludicrously counterproductive to invest in _new_ companies to reduce our effects on the climate, while existing companies are the major cause of the problems we're trying to solve. It's like we're in a sinking ship, trying to remove the water with buckets, instead of patching up the hole the water is rushing in, and stopping the assholes who made it in the first place. I'm not saying climate tech companies shouldn't exist. But let's get our priorities straight first. [1]: https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-...
- wasabi991011 4y ago
  >100 companies are responsible for 71% of global GHG emissions. I've always found that stat to be misleading, as it uses the word "responsible" in a very unconventional way: essentially, GHG emissions come from fossil fuels extracted by these companies, even though the companies themselves aren't the ones using the fossil fuels nor producing the GHGs. This upstream analysis just doesn't seem very useful to me. You mention >If only a fraction of these companies changed a fraction of their processes[...] but I fail to see how China Coal (top 1), Saudi Aramco (2nd), or Gazprom (3rd) could do anything about their process to significantly reduce the amount of emmisions from their products. It's true that the world does need to structurally change to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but going after the producers would at best be a confusing way to apply a carbon tax. Other solutions from climate tech like better electricity production and storage needs to happen simultaneously, not after by "getting our priorities straight".
  - 4y ago
aussiesnack 4y ago
Yes and no. Sure, tech solutions are superficial and can only ever be partially successful. But we know how to build tech. We do not know how to manage 8 billion people stuffed into a couple of hundred unruly 'sovereign' nations. Certainly not to the extent necessary to hold back trivial desires created by corporations/marketing, which now form the core of most world cultures. I have no idea whether or not it's possible to create a viable network of global human cultures which can constrain themselves to live as part of reality (what some call 'nature'), but I'm pretty sure if it is, it's no less than a century away. Probably longer. And we don't have that much time to stop fouling the nest. I see climate change tech as a stopgap. Without it (BAU), or with fantasies of immediate revolutionary change, we're fucked. Tech might help keep society viable long enough to create what's really needed, in a century, or two, or three.
jnsaff2 4y ago
It's even worse than that, listen to the politicians and economists all parroting: - the economy needs to be kicked into gear - we need to inspire consumer confidence to spend more - GDP growth over anything - employment rate needs to be high This is systematic need for spinning money by producing garbage and then using a lot of marketing-advertising to inspire people buying that garbage. Mostly so some people can skim off a bit and get ferraris. It's all so stupid, a much more cooperative and equitable society would mean better life for everyone (including the would be billionaires who would not need to worry about the rabble attacking them and taking away their toys) along with less pressure to the environment. I get we are genetically wired to survive at the harsh game of life, but we have also made profoundly uncool some things like murder, rape, etc. We need to make "being rich" or "baller lifestyle" to be uncool. But we cant because a lot of marketing relies on this to sell their garbage.
Gatsky 4y ago
Be that as it may, I think this initiative by YC is mainly because they noticed a lot of talented founders were starting Climate Tech companies. pg had a tweet about this a while ago.

tofuahdude 4y ago

Ironically many YCombinator businesses support the opposite. Perhaps the first thing YC needs is a mirror.

enduser 4y ago
Unfortunately they only fund things that people want, not things that people need.

coffeemug 4y ago

That's one cultural point of view. Another point of view is that we should get ourselves in a position where we can produce (and consume) infinite clean energy, for example, but building a thousand nuclear power plants. Team mushrooms vs team cocaine.

jongjong 4y ago
We'd still have to take care of the plastics problem and also any population growth problem which would arise from that. It seems that historically, any improvements in efficiency has lead to population booms which negated the efficiency improvements. That's why I think the solution is systemic and cultural. The best that technology can offer IMO is to support a cultural shift and new incentive structures based on scarcity.

imiric 4y ago

I'd say that the solutions should start from the top first. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global GHG emissions.[1] That's a mind-boggling statistic. The counterargument is, of course, that these companies are supplying the demand; that consumers should vote with their wallets, change their habits, recycle, reduce their "carbon footprint", etc. This is the usual deflection propaganda pushed by the companies themselves, and shills who benefit from them. But the reality is that if only a fraction of these companies changed a fraction of their processes to lower their emissions, or—heaven forbid—reduced their growth and shareholder profits, the positive impact would be far, far greater than anything individuals could ever do. It's ludicrously counterproductive to invest in _new_ companies to reduce our effects on the climate, while existing companies are the major cause of the problems we're trying to solve. It's like we're in a sinking ship, trying to remove the water with buckets, instead of patching up the hole the water is rushing in, and stopping the assholes who made it in the first place. I'm not saying climate tech companies shouldn't exist. But let's get our priorities straight first. [1]: https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-...

wasabi991011 4y ago
>100 companies are responsible for 71% of global GHG emissions. I've always found that stat to be misleading, as it uses the word "responsible" in a very unconventional way: essentially, GHG emissions come from fossil fuels extracted by these companies, even though the companies themselves aren't the ones using the fossil fuels nor producing the GHGs. This upstream analysis just doesn't seem very useful to me. You mention >If only a fraction of these companies changed a fraction of their processes[...] but I fail to see how China Coal (top 1), Saudi Aramco (2nd), or Gazprom (3rd) could do anything about their process to significantly reduce the amount of emmisions from their products. It's true that the world does need to structurally change to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but going after the producers would at best be a confusing way to apply a carbon tax. Other solutions from climate tech like better electricity production and storage needs to happen simultaneously, not after by "getting our priorities straight".
- 4y ago

aussiesnack 4y ago

Yes and no. Sure, tech solutions are superficial and can only ever be partially successful. But we know how to build tech. We do not know how to manage 8 billion people stuffed into a couple of hundred unruly 'sovereign' nations. Certainly not to the extent necessary to hold back trivial desires created by corporations/marketing, which now form the core of most world cultures. I have no idea whether or not it's possible to create a viable network of global human cultures which can constrain themselves to live as part of reality (what some call 'nature'), but I'm pretty sure if it is, it's no less than a century away. Probably longer. And we don't have that much time to stop fouling the nest. I see climate change tech as a stopgap. Without it (BAU), or with fantasies of immediate revolutionary change, we're fucked. Tech might help keep society viable long enough to create what's really needed, in a century, or two, or three.

jnsaff2 4y ago

It's even worse than that, listen to the politicians and economists all parroting: - the economy needs to be kicked into gear - we need to inspire consumer confidence to spend more - GDP growth over anything - employment rate needs to be high This is systematic need for spinning money by producing garbage and then using a lot of marketing-advertising to inspire people buying that garbage. Mostly so some people can skim off a bit and get ferraris. It's all so stupid, a much more cooperative and equitable society would mean better life for everyone (including the would be billionaires who would not need to worry about the rabble attacking them and taking away their toys) along with less pressure to the environment. I get we are genetically wired to survive at the harsh game of life, but we have also made profoundly uncool some things like murder, rape, etc. We need to make "being rich" or "baller lifestyle" to be uncool. But we cant because a lot of marketing relies on this to sell their garbage.

Gatsky 4y ago

Be that as it may, I think this initiative by YC is mainly because they noticed a lot of talented founders were starting Climate Tech companies. pg had a tweet about this a while ago.